Ivan Reitman: Bill Murray Has Just Been Sent The GHOSTBUSTERS 3 Script!!

The Associated Press has spoken to Ivan Reitman, out promoting his new Natalie Portman-Ashton Kutcher comedy “No Strings Attached,” and Reitman had at least two interesting things to say about “Ghostbusters 3”:

1) Bill Murray has not yet read a "very good script” for “Ghostbusters 3.”

2) Bill Murray has been sent that "very good script" for “Ghostbusters 3.”

I’m guessing Murray isn’t refusing to read the script and that it was forwarded to him only very recently.

Now, we know this is not the first "Ghostbusters 3” script Murray has read. He certainly saw the Dan Aykroyd script written back in the 1990s, the one that turned Manhattan into Hell, the one that never got shot. (This was so long ago that there was talk of casting Chris Farley and Ben Stiller as the younger Ghostbusters recruits Aykroyd created.)

Much more recently, Harold Ramis’ “Year One” collaborators, “Office” writer-producers Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, have been at work on a new “3” script.

Has Murray seen earlier Stupnitsky/Eisenberg drafts that weren’t “very good”? As with Aykroyd’s draft, the new version of “Ghostbusters 3” is said to focus on younger Ghostbusters (younger SNL vets Will Forte and Bill Hader are reportedly being eyed for roles). Stax’s 2002 review of the old “Ghostbusters 3” script suggests it failed because the younger characters weren’t funny or compelling. The success of this new script may rely on how interesting the new recruits turn out to be. Find the AP’s story here.

The series needed a Ghostbusters 3 which could have made it a great trilogy. 2 was fine, but far too weak to end such a promising premise on. But #3 needed to be filmed in 1992, not 2012. I really don't know if it will work. I love Ghostbusters, both movies. I just think it may be too late, now, and better to leave well-enough alone. As usual when I am pessemistic, I hope that I'm wrong. Doesn't usually turn out that way, though.

As talented as the guy is, would he be a good ghostbuster? He shines whenever he's imitating someone else but I'm not sure how his actual personality couldn't carry a film like this. I've never seen him do stand up or anything as a regular joe that really stood out. I'm not sure if he could carry a whole movie.
Is there something out there I should watch to convince me otherwise?

now with the making of the 3rd movie.He is the only one who doesnt care for money or for a new movie hit,he only cares about getting his oscar while Ramis and especially Akroyd are dying for a movie hit and GB3 is their best bet.
But unfortunately for them Murray has some of the franchise's rights so their balls must be hugely swollen until Murray's highness finally approves that the script is "very good" and decides to go with the making of the film.
Meanwhile we are saved from a 3rd unnecessary movie which will have nothing from the charm and humor of the original one,it will modernized with heavy eye-candy vfx and with scatological rather than intelligent humor in order to appeal for the tween generation,and it will aim only to revive the franchise with new actors which will wont have the chemistry and the personal touch of the original ones but will suffice to entertain the popcorn movie-goers and fill the wallets of the studio people with money.
I hope Bill will never get satisfied with the scripts they pass him on,although he will eventually do it mainly from boredom or simply to leave him alone and focus on getting his beloved oscar.

If he can play a zombie in Zombieland, then he's one step away from GB3
He better do it before he goes bye bye....His Oscar window has passed, and quite frankly BIll Murray as a name is getting old in and of itself..

Yes please. If i could imagine any people i'd like to see replacing the origional line up, thats defintely a good start... will forte needs something to really show his chops, no McGruber does not count.

i can see it now- swaggering in a tight fitting ghostbusting coverall, he turns a corner and sees a naked female ghost,
then jumps into a squat stance,throws his hands towards his groin shouts
"DOOP!"
i miss him too.

This is going to be the Prequels and Indy 4 all over again. I can see the Talkbacks now - Too much CG! They look old! Why was Slimer CG? Killing off Peter Venkman was dumb. They ruined the franchise! - Yes this is like a tractor trailer full of gasoline headed for a fireworks plant and no one is stopping it. Probably because people have that hope that it just might be good, but it won't be. I guarantee it!

No-one wants a new set of young, hip Ghostbusters. Give us the old fat ones running around complaining about proton packs being too heavy. Hell, wait another 10 years and give us a Ghostbusters 3 set in a haunted old people's home. It'd be comedy gold. Kinda like Buba Ho-Tep.

Why the fuck does it have to be about new recruits? People would be psyched to see the original cast carrying the entire movie. Personally, I find that a lot more interesting. We already have two movies about young ghostbusters. Think about it. Not every job is populated solely with hipsters in their twenties. Think of all the old barbers and plumbers and blue collar stiffs you've met, and now imagine them as ghostbusters. By now the company has been franchised, and sure, there are new recruits, but the old farts are still kicking. Fuck a passing the torch movie. I'm sick to death of those. Every movie involving an occupation is either a 'one last job' or a passing the torch or starting from the bottom up kind of story. Why don't we ever get one about a bunch of guys who are just fucking good at what they do?

New characters spell disaster. I'd rather not see this film made. 1) The actors are too old and fat, 2) We've only seen awful ideas for scripts, 3) Part 3's are never good, 4) instead of fairly realistic special effects, we'll get horrible CGI, and 5) Part 2 wasn't even good.

And I know GB2 wasn't the best of movies but I still love it. Kind of how I don't mind the Ewoks. It's because I grew up watching these films from such an early age that I just accept them for what they are. Same thing goes for Gremlins 2 and Back to the Future 2 - I still love all of them. I guess some poor bastards out there will grow up thinking the same way about Jar Jar Binks... poor little fuckers.

Not everyone's taste? Sure, but shitty? Your standards are warped. BTTF 2 is a pretty damn good sequel...it's funny, warm, clever, dark, and totally spins the first movie on it's head in a fun way. It was ballsy, not safe and predictable like most shitty hollywood sequels. How can you put this in the same sentence as god damn Troll 2?

"Ok- so the "villain" from part 1, Biff, who was only a bully but turned out to be a pussy when confronted at the the end, suddenly turns into a sadistic fucking murderer in part 2?? "
Biff becomes like any man who has too much money and power...moral standards become grey areas...it's the classic cautionary tale and a brilliant foreshadowing of what Marty could have become if he'd taken advantage of that sport's almanac...a greedy egomaniac who thinks he's God because he can predict the future. What you call a sadistic murderer is just like any powerful politician who bends the law to get what he wants. It's an alternate timeline for a reason.

Ivan said they sent the script to Bill first to get his approval of the film. Think about why. Bill have always been very critical about this movie, every time news hit the web. Even Bill is worried about how the plot to the third movie is going to go. I give props and respect for Bill's honesty and keeping things real.

I believe Reitman is in fact saying that Bill Murray has yet to read "the very good script" that is now being proposed to him. The article makes it seem as if Bill Murray has read a lot of "bad" proposed Ghostbusters scripts and this is yet another.

.. i watched GB1 20 times.... and GB2.. once....... if theymake a 3rd GB..... they need to "bring the funny..."

Jan. 8, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

by Billy_D_Williams

"But when he's trying to shoot people and saying shit like "2 Mcfly's w/the same gun.." that's just not the character that we met in part 1, at all. "
um...hence alternate timeline dude. the Biff in part one was one step away from being a murdering scumbag...where do you think those guys come from? imagine the Biff in part one as the richest man in the land...combine that with jealousy over George McFly for embarrassing him with the knock out, combine that with alcoholism that Biff was headed towards...it's a natural progression of the character and makes total sense along with the genre expectations...what the fuck were they supposed to do, make Biff some nice, philanthropist? Get real. They needed to raise the stakes in part 2, the sports almanac did the trick. This is not a stretch.

If the movie ends up being bad so what? who cares? Indy 4 sucked and guess what - we still lived and the world kept spinning. Another bad sequel is not going to kill anybody so I don't think there's any need for all this doubt and pessimism.
For all we know the movie could end up being awesome. I say they should go for it while all of the talent is thankfully still around and alive. it's been 20 years since the last one, but guaranteed 20 years from now a new ghostbusters will NOT feature the same actors or writers. Now is their last chance to make this happen. Anyone not down with it can ignore it's existence and watch something else.

There were so many repeat tricks from BTTF 1 that it was not much more than a re-hash, wow showing the same shit from different angles. GB 2 was also just a dumb re-hash. maybe I shouldn't put Gremlins 2 in that category, at least it tried to be different, it just made no fucking sense.

Billy D, excellent counter to darthwaz1. If you listen to Bob Gale in interviews and commentary, that is exactly what they were wanting to reflect with the alternate Biff in BTTF2.
Also darthwaz1, like we saw with BTTF, when Marty brought about a character change in his dad that turned him from a wimp to a confident man, so too did older future Biff from BTTF2 make the same kind of character change to himself by giving himself the almanac , which in turn made him very rich, the money brought about a character change. It really isn't that hard to follow the concept.
One subject; I say leave well enough alone. A really good first movie and a bad second movie. I see no purpose or need for a Ghostbusters 3.

From BTTF 2 was the "nice guy Biff" from the end of the first movie, not the jerk Biff. So how did the nice guy Biff turn out to a grumpy evil old bastard who wanted revenge and money and would give his young self a book to rule the world?? it makes no sense!

I'm glad Murray is holding out for quality, hopefully he has sway over who is cast as the next generation. You can't cast purely TV show stars as the main 3 in the original had film success with comedies.

the government helping them discover the secrets to the afterlife and making better weapons to catch these things. Unknown to the gang a war-hungry head of the project has been secretly stealing the busters research and has finally recreated all their equipment and crreates his own team of 4 (so far) ghost busting super soldiers/super police (who wear all black with slick gadgets). The ghostbusters return one day to there new labs in d.c. to find that they are fired. They act up and get bured by the press with a lie about them. Now down on there luck they re-open the business to try and stir up a few bucks with nostalgia. They get a job and before they can bust the new super-soldier ghostbusters stomp through and do a clean bust, impressing the press with their slick new toys, and make the old gb's look like chmps, a laughing stock. and as the new super gb's rack up the ghosts left and right from there on in, a new evil is brewing. The super soldiers at the end go to stop it but there weaponary alone won't do the trick, luckily the old school gb's are also occultists and did some research on this new evil. they step in at the end and finish the job for the super gb's and gain the worlds respect again.
at the end the evil head of the new gb's is flustered and angry as hell, he's like "i don't get it, we did everything right, we have all the super technology, we busted our asses, how Venkman, how did your boys pull it off?"
and Pete's like "you forgot one thing... we're the ghostbusters"
end scene.
this is how Ghostbusters III should go down.
It could also end with Pete and Ripley getting married and Lewis Tully and Slimer are the bestmen.

The idea of the Ghostbusters in their sixties, is kind of depressing.
Don't even bother with the "passing the torch" storyline. NO ONE will want to see another Ghostbusters movie with 4 characters that aren't Egon, Peter, Winston and Ray, in the same way that no one wants to see a movie with Mutt Williams.
What was the last good, funny movie Ivan Reitman directed? If Evolution and My Super Ex-Girlfriend are any indication, we are headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

The game was pretty cool. I consider it a sequal to the films. It has a pretty good developing story-line and the inclusion of the full cast voice acting right down to the original scores from the films were right on. If you guys haven't played it yet, do so. Get it from Gamefly or do a bargin bin purchase. It's worth it!

new comedic recruits. maybe if the new guys are a competing company. i'd rather they were a bunch of unknown assholes.
and anyways it's been like 20 years since last time, by now they should have a few old new recruits anyway. a plot about them hiring new peopl should have happened in like 1986.

Agree with the people who like BTTF 2. Always thought that was a clever, original sequel; better than BTTF 3. Ghostbusters 2 was not so good but nowhere as bad as a really shitty sequel like say...Robocop 2, that one still stings.

They make some very simple observations.
1. That history is cyclical.
2. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
3. Some stuff is just universal.
I'm not saying that 2 & 3 are rehashes of the original BTTF. They're really not.
BTTF 1 tackles the basic idea that even our parents were young once and that we're more alike than different. As much as he interfered, Marty was still the outsider looking in. BTTF is about the power of love.
BTTF 2 exposes the darker side of time travel. Given this new power, would you use it responsibly or abuse the shit out of it? Obviously, Marty wanted the latter and quickly learns the perils. BTTF 2 is about power and responsibility.
BTTF 3 is sort of that middle ground. We're back to the star crossed love story angle of the original movie, but we also have Doc tempting fate for a more noble cause. BTTF3 is that mix of 1 & 2 with the moral being that the future is ultimately what we make of it.
Yes. They all have recurring elements. Yes. Certain character types and story beats repeat. Yes. Certain key lessons are learned & relearned. However, I think that the take away here is that life is actually kinda like that.
Sometimes, we find ourselves in the same exact situations over and over again. Only the players change. Sometimes, we find ourselves repeating the mistakes of our parents or living in their shadows. And then we do it to our children.
And, yeah, there are often recurring players in our histories too. If your family has lived in the same town for generations, you kinda know that to be true. You may butt heads with one person, only to find out that your grandfather had a bad history with his grandfather. In small towns especially, that happens.
BTTF, like all comedies, tends to exaggerate this stuff. It puts those truisms under the microscope and blows them up into something bigger and more outrageous.
Do the sequels crib from the original? Sure. However, they're usually aware when they do. Marty certainly becomes aware of this cyclical nature of history. Plus, remember that they were written as one gigantic sort of flick. When BTTF 2 replays something from #1 it might be important to look at it as a setup for something that pays off in #3.

Chrissake what a POS movie! What the hell happened?! It seemed nobody gave a shit about that movie!
I admit I haven't seen it in years but I still remember how bad it was!
If Bill is taking his sweet time making sure the script is very good for GB3 than I give him much respect! Too bad the makers of KK3 didn't have the heart to do the same!

and if Reitman was lucky he read the script while still under the influence of Chartreuse; it's the only way Oscar coveting Murray would sign off on what will surely be a monumental train wreck of a film.
That said..Crystal Headl Vodka IS the shit...Akroyd may not have the best taste in film projects, but he knows his fuckin booze.

Biff was changed into an ass-kisser in alternate 1985, not a genuine nice guy. We see this proven in a couple scenes, like when Biff snaps at Marty in pt.3 when he doesn't recognize him, then quickly resumes buttkisser mode when he realizes his mistake.
He probably would be a very bitter old man after kissing the McFlys' asses for over half a century. So no plothole there.

Don't know why we're talking about it here, but as long as we are...
So Old Biff steals the Delorean, and takes it back to 1955. He gives the almanac to his younger self, and then takes the Delorean back to the... future, where he has a heart attack or something and dies. Then Marty gets in the Delorean, tries going back to 1985, and finds that it's an alternate timeline now.
So how did Old Biff manage to get back to the same future he came from? As soon as he gave Young Biff the almanac, he should have been stuck in the new timeline!
Just something that's always bugged me. CARRY ON.

maybe it took about an hour or two or maybe a day or two before biff would place a bet and win his first sum of money, since this is the first time this event is unfolding it wouldn't efffect the future until the bet is actually made. so old biff had some time to be in the future he remembered before he faded away like they showed in the extra scenes.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=584665
the time ripple takes time, man! also, if you notice, Biff starts to disappear in the future because the ripple seems to hit people first, like Marty disappearing in the first movie.

Biff tried to run Marty over and kill him in the first movie because he punched him! The guy always had a huge violent streak, face it.
Back to the Future is a great trilogy, and one of the few where the feel and spirit of all 3 films are almost identical. mostly because they didn't wait that long to make the sequels and they shot them at the same time. You can watch all three and feel like they're almost one big movie. That's not usually true.
I really have never heard of someone listing BTTF 2 as a possible candidate for worst sequel ever, or listing it in the same BREATH as Troll 2. That is a level of decreased brain function that I find almost incomprehensible.
Ghostbusters 2 was nowhere near as good as the first one, but it had a lot of great scenes. The courtroom scene is hilarious. Murray's lines to distract Viggo while they're paralyzed is some of the best shit in either movie. Peter Macnichols is fucking HILARIOUS as the museum guy. It has a lot to like. If it's biggest crime is that it's not as good as one of the funniest movies of all time, that's hardly enough to inspire so much derision.

I don't like the idea of The original Ghostbusters becoming ghosts at the end of the movie. In the previous movies ghosts were rather sad, pathetic creatures, doomed to wander in limbo, trapped between heaven and hell. Not a fitting end for our heroes.

My take on what I think would make a good 3rd installment. I think this could be a slightly more serious entry. If I were writing it, I'd open the film with the ghostbusters having to face some menace without Winston because for some reason Winston didn't show up for work. They end up getting their asses handed to them because of their age and because they're a man down. Afterwards, they show up at Winston's house, pissed off that he left them high and dry without a word with Venkman leading the way, barging in past Winston's wife and into the bedroom where Winston seems to be asleep. He shoos him out and then at one point, goes "Right, guys?" and turns to them, only to see Winston's wife crying and the Ray and Egon looking morose. Venkman goes over the bed to try to wake Winston until he's forced to accept that he's dead. Venkman seems to take it the hardest.
Cut to the funeral. Cut to Ray and Egon calling Venkman in for a talk. They bring up the need for a new ghostbuster. Venkman says they've had this discussion before and this is a hell of a time to bring it up again. He says it's the 4 of them and it's always been the 4 of them. Ray reminds him not anymore. Later finds out they've put out an ad for a new hire without his knowledge and is pissed. But they convince him to reluctantly let them search for one recruit for now since they don't have the money and research to school many recruits and because it's not just a job but a family and they need to know they can trust the recruit with their lives. Venkman reluctantly agrees saying that any new recruit must be approved unanimously by all three.
Then we get a classic montage of interview candidates, each worse than the one before until the day is over and they've found nobody even close to an acceptable candidate. And then, she walks in. Some young, sexy Summer Glau-type woman who apologizes for being late. Venkman says too late and they've decided not to hire anyone after all. She says she's disappointed but she just wants to say that she read Egon's paper on (insert lots of science-y sounding technobabble) and thought it was brilliant. She then gets into a brief talk w/ Egon and Ray about their work, demonstrating that she's as brilliant as she is beautiful. And she asks if before she goes, she can look at the containment unit because she's always wanted to see it. They show her and she's clearly very knowledgeable of the science and has a passion for their work. She dismisses herself as Ray and Egon look at each other in silent approval that they found their recruit. They turn to Venkman who protests that she's a chick, that they've always been a boys club, and how they won't be able to walk around the house in their underwear. Ray reminds him of Jeanine and that they've never walked around the house in their underwear. Venkman reluctantly agrees to hire her on a two-week trial basis. So they quickly run and hire her before she leaves.
Cut to some crazy Gozer-worshiper who finally has found a way to resurrect Gozer.
The second act of the film finds the ghostbusters going on a bunch of cases with their new recruit as Venkman continues to resent her both for breaking into their boys club and for replacing Winston. But the recruit proves herself and even sparks sexual tension with Egon. Eventually, they face off against Gozer again and again, Gozer announces it will destroy them with their own thoughts. Egon and Venkman shoot Ray a look and Venkman says "Don't even think about it. I'm not cleaning that shit up again." But Gozer turns to Venkman and says he's chosen their method of destruction and the ghost of Winston shows up. And ultimately, the ghostbusters must let go of Winston and accept that he's gone, as well as their own mortality, in order to defeat Gozer for good. The recruit wins Venkman's approval and Egon gets the girl.

... not some crappy 'fan-film" approach that cameos everything and rehashes.
The Dark Knight stood apart from Batman Begins, The Empire Strikes Back raised the bar on Star Wars, and Aliens brought a whole new oomph to Aliens.
As funny as Ghostbusters was, it was frightening in parts and very clever.
I'd hope for and expect the same level of writing or better or it's NOT a good script.

Yes please. If i could imagine any people i'd like to see replacing the origional line up, thats defintely a good start... will forte needs something to really show his chops, no McGruber does not count.

..as some poster suggested got me thinking-why are all mediums the same size?I mean-they are all....medium.You never hear of a Psychic Small or a Psychic Extra Large,do you?If you ask me,they must be contravening some employment equality law-or are psychics exempt somehow?I think we should be told.In the meantime,all the Psychic Non-Mediums should form a union,and demand equal rights with those selfish Mediums!

I think Donald Glover (Troy from Community) would be a good fit for one of the new Ghostbusters - I could imagine him having the nerdy energy that Dan Ackroyd had in the original, just loving how cool bustin' ghosts is...

I just can't see it being a good film this long after the first 2. I'd rather just watch the first two and enjoy them than be saddened by a really bad third film. Here's hoping I am wrong if they do go ahead but I wont hold my breath.

She'll kill all anyone who stands in her way and uses Mancurrian Candidate style brainwashing on Facebook to enlist nutters to kill her enemies. Hallejujah boys, the missles are flying!!!! Oh, and Ghostbusters 3 sounds like shit.

Thats...the more i think about that the more i'd love it on an absurd level...but as an actor more than director....maybe he could be a pal or boyfriend (im not joking) to Rick Morranis (times and Tullys denial have moved on) before possibly getting recruited....and then get Mark Pellingro & Michael Ian Black to be evil twin demons or something!....not the main villains but...i must stress this is self indulgant of-the-top-of-your-head-thinking-out-load-in-the-moment rhetoric, not really given much thought....<p>Unless i'm nuts i didnt post my previous comment twice

Because it seems like he just shows up on set, hangs out with the crew, cutting jokes, and then they just turn on the camera and capture his free-form acting. I'm not criticizing his professionalism or his talent at all, but his recent roles have this feel of him not having read the screenplay before showing up for the shoot.

Watch the trilogy in this light and this becomes apparent.
I think a lot of the misplaced criticism that the sequels get is that some people were wanting the focus to be on Marty. But Zemeckis and Gale just were not interested in going much further with Marty (except for maintaining the status quo for him and his family as the driving plot for BTTF2). Marty's major arc was already played out in the first movie, and they tacked on the "chicken" thing to carry through the sequels. Otherwise, Marty was mostly a supporting character in the sequels.
So to repeat: The original movie focused squarely on Marty's plight. The second movie just went balls-to-the-wall with the DeLorean time machine itself (showing up further how cool but also very dangerous it is). And the final movie settled in with a story focused on Doc.

looking to buy my first ever game console. I have nt really played games much since I was in my teens and early 20s.
The whole Playstation/x-box has totally passed me by.
Thus I really know very little about the pros and cons of both.
If anyone has the time and is thus inclined, could you guys provide some advice for a videogame layman about which console to buy.
Im not a hardcore gamer, just want something basic that is up to date, has a good library of games, and is fun for two people to play games on together.

Notice that old Biff doesn't return to 2015 until AFTER Doc gets Jennifer out of the McFly house. So when the DeLorean returns, the future transforms around Doc, Marty, and old Biff. They just never notice it.

ray is a pretty big incentive as I dont have one already.
But I have heard of problems with the PS3. What are the downsides to the PS3in your opinion?
And what exactly are the comparisons between the X-Box and the PS3?

his roles have all but dried up. if you go to youtube you can see his only irish interview with gay byrne. irish comedian jason byrne asks him a question. murrays response was typically dead pan. He was in ireland to appear in the legendary cats laughs comedy festival in Killkenny...where he died a death. he walked and on stage and his open joke was "I just bumped into my irish cousin ulick magee." it didnt get any better. and murray hasnt been back since. in fact he has never done anymore stand up. I wonder why

I'm not saying the prequels are goldmines, although maybe they could be if Lucas hired a top hollywood editor, and gave the editor every piece of film he shot for the movies, to go back and re-edit the fuck out of them, or maybe even film new stuff. Even showing Vader in full costume at the end of 3 was a sellout. They coulda left him in a bacta tank, or a borg-looking outfit w/hoses and wires everywhere.
But GB2 and BTTF 2 are just shameless re-hashes of their first movies, with little or no original ideas.

As I pointed out, each sequel was decidedly different in tone, plot and pacing from one another and the first. In fact, I think this is partly why the sequels have been criticized. But I appreciated Zemeckis and Gale for not rehashing the basic premise of the first movie and for expanding the storytelling beyond Marty.

Seriously, why would anyone go see this if it centers around Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis or if it is about "new hip Ghostbusters"?
If Murray isn't 100% committed to the project don't do it.
That said I think this film could be really fun if Murray signs on.

I like the idea that they're these grizzled, seen everything, done-it-all types who are never afraid of the fact that they're dealing with ghosts, demons, etc. I mean, the average 'customer' of the ghostbusters would be scared shitless of some of this stuff, but then they come in and they're old pros... but then there should be something that begins to scare the shit out of even the seasoned vets that they are, something that fucks with their head, turns their world upside down and makes them realize that you never know what the hell you're gonna be dealing with when you wake up in the morning as an exterminator of the paranormal. It could be that a group of demons or whatever from the other side gang up together and figure out a way to not be harmed by the proton packs and, thus, uncatchable.... like take their tools away from them, make them go back to using their wits and they have to outsmart the ghosts somehow. Make some of it a psychological mind-fuck for the Ghostbusters, which the first movie had at times and I must say, Vigo was a scary prick at times too, but the music in that movie, that ladi-da 'baby' music undermined the tension a lot in GB2.
I see no need whatsoever to bring in 'young blood'. That storyline is tired and fucking unoriginal and I think it would take the entire production down some very uninteresting alleyways, where they'd always go for the easy joke, the internet meme reference, the usual 'modern', in the worst sense of the word, comedic bullshit.
Another possibility would be that someone is making a documentary on the Ghostbusters, gets too personal, and then they find out he's actually some kind of devil or Gozer worshipper, figuring out a way to get between their bond or a way to, like I said earlier, get around their ghostbusting technology.
The only other storyline I can think of off the top of my head is that the ghosts figure out a way to get the people of the city to turn on them through possession.

If Aykroyd, Ramis and Murray (and even Ernie!) aren't the centerpieces of GBIII, I will not be in attendance. I don't begrudge Reitman trying to create a Ghostbusters franchise, but he should do it with a proper reboot. Also, you don't need to modernize GBIII to make a shitload of money; the Ghostbusters films are so prevalent, even the youngest morons understand the appeal of the original cast. This isn't like Indiana Jones, where you're placing a 70 year-old man in ridiculous action sequences. The whole point of Ghostbusters is that they ARE ridiculous! The more ridiculous you make them look, the more rewarding their triumphs become. Just give Murray a good script so you get his maximum effort, and everything will work out fine.

...I deliberately run several years behind in games. Just picked up a used 360. It's been out long enough to have a huge library of good used games for $10 (or 3 for $20). HALO, BIOSHOCK, GEARS OF WAR, SPLINTER CELL, ASSASIN'S CREED...
I don't see how you beat that hours of fun per dollar ratio without throwing in a cheap edition of the Kama Sutra, a handle of gin, and a trampoline.

i bought a ps3 in summer 2008 - old discontinued model now - ive had no problem thus far - it did crash a couple times while playing a game a long time ago - oblivion i think - locked up froze - but all consoles do that sometimes - i put a 500 gig hard drive in it - transferred all my data - still works great - i play for hours with no overheating no crashes - i know people with xbox 360s that had to replace them because they just quit working (some more than once) - you can play uncharted, killzone, little big planet, rachet and clank, god of war, mgs4, heavy rain, infamous, folklore and resistance only on a ps3 - all good games - plus all the multi platform stuff

Does anyone really wanna see a 300lb Akroyd with a walrus-like Ramis waddling around NY with a wrinkly Bill Murray? Not this fan.
Let's keep their voices and do a kick ass animated film that would make fans juice their hanes. Imagine a big budget episode of The Real Ghostbusters! That would put my ass in the seat. (Ernie Hudson, you are exempt from my criticisms. You have aged supernaturally well)

Each console has it's own benefits. The PS3 is more powerful and has the slight edge on performance as well as the Blu-Ray but doesn't have the online following for multiplayer that the X-Box has. It is also an extremely well put together bit of kit with a better build quality than the XBOX. There has also been a few security issues recently regarding the PS3 itself. The PS3 also has the new Move controller which is very similar in function to a Wii remote, just more accurate. To go online with the PS3 is currently free, but as i said the community is much smaller.
The XBox has had serious problems in the past with complete hardware failure a commom occurence but if you get the newly released 'slim' model, you will be ok as its a total redesign which comes with a large 250gb harddrive and new wireless function. The new console is much quieter than the older model and a little quieter than the PS3. Microsoft has also released the new Kinect sensor which incorporates full body recognition to supposedely 'immerse youself in the game'. So far, like the PS Move, there are very few titles to actually make it really worth the extra money, but future applications look promising. Finally, the XBOX has a massive online community which unfortunately has to be paid for but if you are sociable is well worth the money.
Both consoles have excellent exclusives but the XBOX has more on average and a larger library.
If you are looking for games with the most value i would recommend titles such as Fallout 3 & New Vegas, Mass Effect and Red Dead Redemption. If you want multiplayer i would suggest the Call of Duty series, Red Dead, and Halo. Hope this helps

Be careful where you ask that question because in some cases you'll get some quite emotional fanboys of either console spiiting bile at the other. At the end of the day, both consoles provide entertainment and its all about the fun.

Only downside is the ancient web browser, and they removed backward compatibility with PS2 games (which hopefully will return). If you are sharing with a woman, they tend to prefer the controller and catalog of the PS3 or Wii to the XBOX360, which is more male-oriented. Perhaps you should wait for next gen, as Sony is putting Solid State Drives in their stuff. Unless you need Blu-Ray now plus Netflix streaming...

Just what exactly is being "fucked with" by them trying to make a new sequel? One new movie or 12 new movies has nothing to do with the original films.
"there is simply no way anyone can make a decent Ghostbusters flick these days."
Maybe so...but maybe not. Just because Indy 4 sucked everyone shouldn't turn into whining cunts afraid that a franchise is going to be "ruined". For many people the franchise has been sour since Ghostbusters 2 anyway so whats the difference?
"Does anybody want to see 60 something Ghostbusters try to pass it on to younger lame guys from way past its prime(by like 12 years) current SNL cast members."
There's really only so many ways the story can go at this point. For all we know any new cast members may end up as glorified cameos while the old dudes take center stage.

BWAHAHAHAHA thank god you are the minority and HW doesnt give a fuck about your opinion.
TF2 is an atrocious sequel to an already mediocre movie.Robocop2 is a bad sequel.Matrix2 now that was a POS sequel.what else?Spiderman2 was a mediocre sequel to a decent movie.cant think of something else.

I think i'd rather have a 20 year past his prime Dan Ackroyd helping with the script than have the writers of 'Year One' keeping their grubby paws on it. Honestly, i will never forgive anyone in that film for the 60 minutes i wasted watching it.

"Ok so people didn't like Temple of Doom. It was too dark, weird and gloomy. Let's remake Raiders, but we'll make it a slapstick version of Raiders!" Nice going morons..
At least Indy 4 was it's own idea and not a repeat, so I do give it some credit.

I kinda disagree about those 2. Not great by any means. But T3 brings back the B-movie element of the first film, but it repeats too much from part 2. the ending is surprisingly ballsy for a mainstream hollywood movie. T4 is ultimately pointless, but not as bad as ppl say in my opinion. It doesn't rely on the silly premise of time travel yet again, and the aesthetic is kinda cool. It has some of the same problems as the SW prequels though, an unfocused story and characters we really never get to know or care about.
Alien 4 is lame, but Alien 3 is soo much better as the extended cut on the new blu ray set. Huge improvement over the original version.

compared to that awful Predators piece of shit movie.At least with P2 you had action,blood,guts,boobies and a bad-ass hero which delivered the most bad-ass line in the whole god-damn franchise,including AVP:
"ok, who's next?"

Silly but fun- balls to the wall action and gore. Paper thin characters that just do what they need to do. It's what the AVP movies didn't realize...WE'RE WATCHING AVP, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT CHARACTERS! WE WANNA SEE ALIENS AND PREDATORS KILL EACH OTHER!

same flaws with Matrix.i have mixed feelings about Magnum Force,i liked some parts of it but its ending was a big letdown for me.And i am still waiting for the remake of the original with Hugh Jackman goddammit Hollywood.

that dude understands how to make a sequal, and what to do and not do with them. I dont care what anyone says, Aliens and T2 are still the two most satisfying action/sci-fi sequals I have ever seen....

I don't care who started what in your little nerd war of insults between you and braindrain, that last statement was all kinds of messed up.
Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and call what you see there a prick.

That would be the turnoff for me. Also: it'd be nice if the other original cast members, and hell, Bill too, would like, try a little Weight Watchers and visit one of the 3 billion plastic surgeons that infest Hollywood. Seriously, actors with the money and access to personal trainers and chefs and Dr. 90210 have NO excuse to look as bad as the original Ghostbuster team members do. Harold Ramis looks like Slimer now for god's sake. If they show up in the movie looking like a male version of the Golden Girls, it'd be as bad as that stupid wrongheaded Muppet movie that's getting made. If something LOOKS dead and SOUNDS dead and ACTS dead, then it's DEAD, dammit!

He's like a bad, stupidier version of john Landis on a very bad day. That hack (Reitman) lucked out into an enjoyable movie (Ghostbusters) and from since he has been hailing himself as the king of comedy, which he fucking isn't. Screw Reitman. His son has proved to be what his old man never was, a proper filmmaker with talent for the job. Ivan Reitman is and always was what he started as: a producer who forced his hand into directing. The only really good thing that Ivan Reitman has done in his whole career is that he produced David Cronenberg's first movie adn thus gave Cronenberg his start in the film business. That's the only thing that Reitman should be thanked for.
Any year without an Ivan Reitman movie is a good thing.

.... he can go fuck himself up in his fucking ass. Fuck, how i detest that fucking hack! Obviously, filmmaking is not on his genes, because his son can actually make movies and has talent for filmmaking. He didn't got it from his old man, that's for sure.

but he did a great job directing GB1.The goth setting,the dark mood,the sexual innuendo,the creepy music,the authenticity of the location settings,letting the actors improvise and showcase the real friendship between and ofc the humor which was perfectly balanced with the more horrifying aspects of the film.
I am not defending him,i am only pointing out that GB couldnt have been any better than what he already achieved as the director of the film.

Ivan Reitman is the picture perfect of an hack circa the fucking 1980s. And contrary to many, i don't suck the dick of GHOSTBUSTERS. It's a fine movie, funny in places, but it's hardly the masterpiece that geeks make it out to be. I see all throughout that movie the fingerprints of a fucking hack. People like that movie because they fall inlove with Bill Murray, and not anything that Ivan The Hack Reitman did in the movie. And the unsung heroes of that movie are Dan Akroid and Harold Ramis, who wrote the script, and Sigourney Weaver because she could still mantain pose and be funny in the company of Murray at his most clownish.

Too right. It's still unbelievable that he actually allowed himself to get a decent scirpt for GHOSTBUSTERS. I still believe that GB was supposed to be directed by John Landis but Ivan The Hack Reitman stole the gig. I'm not a fan of GHOSTBUSTERS, but that movie is too good for Reitman. It's the odd movie out of his career of shit. Fucker did a devil's trick to get that movie for him.
And as a player, Reitman is a ruthless motherfucker. He forced David Cronenberg to change the title of his movie TWINS to DEAD RINGERS because he also had some shitty twins movie to be released that same year. Yeah, Ivan The Fuck Reitman fucked his former filmmaker friend Cronenberg and strongarmed him to change the title of a movie which Cronenberg had worked and tried to make it for more then a decade. Reitman shits out a movie in the quick, also calls it TWINS, and forces Croenberg to change his older movie's title. That's what kind of a shit that fuck-ass Reitman is.
Ivan Reitman can get fucked up in his fucking ass.

Bill Murray has creed. He's a respected comedian and actor.
Ivan Reitman has shit. All he has is tirelessly pimping some old glory from a movie he made 25 years ago. I just hope that Murray tells Reitman to go fuck himself and go shove the script up his fucking ass.

Please stop. don't ever make movies again. Keep as you are, not doing anything. We already suffered too much form your filmmography. For once in your life have pity on the innocent. So, i ask you, stop. Don't make any new movies ever. It wasn't you which made GHOSTBUSTERS enjoyable. You ar e not responsible for it working. Don't flatter yourself.
So, i ask you, stop making movies. And if you do not listen, the hell with you and get fucked. Thank you.

I dont know who said you could put your two cents into our "nerd war" as you call it, but ugh
I really dont care about your thoughts when it comes to my thoughts on why idiots should be shot, but thank you for your input and kindly go back to doing whatever else you were doing.
You can argue back at me, but the point is, people die everyday... and it would be kinda nice if idiots were the ones dying instead of lil kids... sorry if you dont agree with me there...

where they travel to a primitive age that is troubled by supernatural forces gets an unlikely visit from the 4 bustin' brothers who eventually win them over and stop ghosts, either by recreating primitive proton packs or with their actual car and equiptment coming with them. janeane, lewis, dana etc. could be like characters they are related to, old ancestors, who live back then.

from 83, you might get the idea that Ivan Reitman who produced it, had something to do with bringing Ernie Hudson onto the project as well as the score for the film, both seen and heard in Spacehunter.
Also Reitman produced Heavy Metal.

May indeed be a better film maker than Reitman, but Beverly Hills Cop 3, is, the biggest turd of a sequel ever made. Ghostbusters 1 AND 2 are better than that steaming pile of horse shit.
Landis should be embarrassed beyond words to
have put his name on that unfunny hunk of shit. When Eddie Murphy is the star of your film, and the funniest moment of the film comes from Bronson fucking Pinchot, you have some serious problems.
So say what you will about Reitman, Landis has the incredible dishonor of making one of the WORST sequels ever made, and helped Murphy in his downfall. Even Murphy had said that BHCIII was terrible.

To be fair, I've never seen Blues Brothers 2000, and a bunch of other crappy sequels, but I've never forgotten the crushing disappointment of BCH3. I chuckled ONCE: when Murphy runs over the singing toy trains, kicking them off their tracks. That John Landis - John "Animal House" Landis!!! - would deliver an Eddie Murphy movie so aggressively unfunny made me hate him forever.

Agreed, with Scott at the helm of BHCII, it was definitely more action focused. But...the funny stuff was funny, and Axle Foley was Axle Foley, the character was no different in II than he was in I. The radical character shift was one of the many, many problems with III.
I have not seen BB2000 either, but I have it on good authority that it is indeed worse than BHCIII, which is hard to believe, but sadly I do believe it.

Murray said that he'd only do a GB3 if Venkman ended up as a ghost, and he said on Letterman that he meant it as a joke, hoping such an idea would be so stupid that they'd never bother to approach him to do another Ghostbusters movie. but apparently, they took his comment seriously and it's rumored that they in fact make him a ghost in the more recent treatments. is it too much to ask to just get Egon, Winston, Ray, and Peter back together without some goofy gimmick like that? all Ghostbusters fans just want to see the original four back together cracking wise and busting ghosts one last time.

his face in the awards (oscar and GG) said everything you need to know about the guy.and i think he even openly stated that he was strongly against Big Jim to win the oscar.what a prick.
and i agree completely about the movies you mention.

great sequals. I mostly agree with your choices. For me Revenge of the fallen, The lost world, BHC3, Robocop3, Batman and Robin are among the all time worst sequals....
And agreed that the BTTF sequals are terribly underrated. I hold them to be far better than some make out.
But then I also think the POTC, and Matrix sequals are underrated.....

I think way too many people were just shocked by the dark turn taken in BTTF, and then another total U-turn into period Western for part 3. But that's what makes them so great. They're all so different from one another, and yet knit beautifully into one complete story (which is really Doc Brown's character arch - he's the "protagonist in the background.").

The typical Rietman hackery in GHOSTBUSTERS starts with the fucking retard shitty pop music score that movie has. That's the start. Then there's the unimaginative directing. People are so hypnotized with the Murray antics, the general fine performances by the actors and the fine funny script by Ackroyd and Ramis that they don't notice what an uninspired piec eof shitty directing that movie has. Then there's the desperate atempt the movie does at audience ass kissing.
GHOSTBUSTERS is not a good movie. It's at beast an average uninspired movie which contains some pearls of comedy thanks mostly to the script and the actors. And Ivan The Shit Reitman had nothing to do with that.
And if yo guys think that BEVERLY HILLS COP 3 is bad (as if the other two were any good!), you are absolutly right, it is a crapass shitty movie. And Landis did it because Ivan The Shit Reitman stole his career. By all normal order of things, it's Landis who should had done GHOSTBUSTERS and Ivan Reitman BHC3. Becasue BHC3 is a Ivan Reitman-like movie through and through. Fucking pissant Reitman not only stole Landis's career, he also made Landis to have his.
Fuck Ivan Reitman up in his fucking ass.

Hi mate. i haven't opened the email for a month already, i got sick with a severe cold. I'll check your email. As for TRON LEGACY, it's going to open here only next thursday. But that's not the worst news. The wrost is that TRUE GRIT will only open at February 21th. Grrrr!!

Can Jar Jar Abrams's SHIT TREK be classified as among the worst sequles as well? Because many call it STXI, as if it's a sequel to the movies already made before. If so, then SHIT TREK has to also be included among the worst sequels ever made in the whole history of world cinema.

Wahhhh......Reitman stole Landis's career....wahhhhh.
Dude are you fucking serious? Landis made a bad movie, period, and you are going to blame that on Reitman? That is not only the WEAKEST argument ever, it is just plain fucking stupid.
Actually, Landis made TWO shitty sequels.....BHCIII and Blues Brothers 2000....I guess that is Reitman's fault as well?
Landis is also responsible for making two very funny movies with Eddie Murphy....Trading Places and Coming To America.....and Reitman had nothing to do with those, so the piss poor excuse that BHCIII and BB2000 were abortions and it was because Reitman "stole" Landis's career is invalid.
Seriously, think before you type such inane drivel. IF Landis had a shitty career, it was no ones fault but his own. Maybe it had something to do with his mistakes killing Vic Morrow on the Twilight Zone set that killed his career. Oh yea, you didn't mention that did you? Did it slip your mind? Must have.

Watch both Reitman's and Landis's career and tell me that by all logic GHOSTBUSTERS should had been a Landis movie while that festering pile of shit BEVERLY HILLS COP 3 should had been an Ivan Reitman movie, because it sur eis one through and through.
And i'm not even a fan of John Landis, but man, he got scooped by Reitman.

So then stop your childish whining about Reitman "stole" Landis's career.
Just because he didn't have the success that Reitman had that you wanted for him, does not mean he "stole" his career.
No one is responsible for anyone's career except their own. Deal with it.

Asi, I have a question for you... if Jar Jar actually made a good movie, do you think you'd give him credit for it? I try to be as objective about my own opinion as I can. That is, I try not to let personal prejudices and such get in the way of the simple question, "was that movie an entertaining or simply enlightening and positive experience?" This could mean any number of things, it doesn't mean I only like entertaining movies about lollipops and rainbows... a positive experience could mean it made me question the world, see things from a new perspective... whatever. I feel it's important with any art/entertainment that you meet the work on its own terms and judge accordingly.
The point is, your hatred of J.J. Abrams and 'Shit Trek', as you call it, has reached epic, legendary proportions and it makes me wonder if you'd be able to see through that hatred if he did something worthwhile.
Let me ask you a few questions and I'm 100% serious about this: Do you think Abrams has any redeeming qualities whatsoever? Do you believe he has any cinematic and/or storytelling talent? Have you ever seen anything in his films or television shows that you liked?
Just to make this query complete, I'm going to give my own take on what I don't like about Abrams: For some reason, I find him more deplorable than someone like Michael Bay, because Abrams seems to make well disguised mediocrities. People praise him as if he's the second coming of Serling, Spielberg, Lucas, and Roddenberry all rolled into one, but I actually agree with much of your assessment that his work is totally lacking in any substance whatsoever and, unlike those mentioned, he's incapable (at least thus far) of giving a work the action adventure pathos/depth of a Jaws, the bittersweet nostalgia of an American Graffiti, the extreme multi-level irony of a Twilight Zone, or the forward thinking vision/philosophy/what ifs? of the real Star Trek. For me, his work is the ultimate in shiny objects being dangled in front of infants and for THAT, I have to give him credit, because he does have a talent for kinetic, hyper energized, pretty looking films with decent performances, a perfect mix that seems to fool the audience like clockwork. I even enjoy his work sometimes but then look back and realize they're almost totally pointless confections parading as so much more. About as filling as cotton candy and as plotless as a video art installation. I also feel that he tends to put into movies the kinds of people he must hang out with... pretty, well dressed, hip, but ultimately vapid and uninteresting. But that's just my opinion, I'm sure others will tell me how I'm wrong.